Demonstrating leadership can be a difficult thing, as all
too often leaders become passengers as events unfold on the world stage and on
the public’s televisions, but should we be expecting more from them in the
modern age?
Gone are the days of Kings leading troops into battle,
however, at a time when politicians are being forced to make unpopular
decisions, both in terms of budgeting and reform, demonstrating this level of moral
authority is not only desirable, but vital.
There are certainly many examples of the public calling for
this over the last decade and in particular since the introduction of online
petitions.
More specifically, two examples stand out over the course of
this government.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, in defence of
his welfare payment cuts, claimed he could, if needed, live on £53 a week
leading to an online petition asking him to prove it.
Secondly, following his attempted reforms of the school
system, Education Secretary Michael Gove was challenged to work in a state
secondary school.
Both of these, at least on one level, have some legitimacy.
Should not Mr Duncan-Smith learn how hard it is for the
other half to make ends meet?
How can Mr Gove legislate on schools when the last time he
was in a classroom was at Oxford University before starting his career in
journalism?
However, the fact is the petitioners on both these issues
never expected IDS to start making fortnightly trips to the Job Centre, or Mr Gove
to start marking homework during committee hearings.
What was wanted in both these situations was the issue
itself and petitions were used as a tool to draw
attention to the policies.
However, in the last few days another similar, although
arguably more divisive, issue has arisen where true leadership would be
welcome.
On Monday Prime Minister David Cameron offered local
authorities a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby the council agree to allow
fracking in their ward in exchange for keeping 100 percent of the business
rates.
Although this style of arrangement is not unheard of
(Alaskan residents, for example, get a dividend from oil companies who drill in
the US state), it has proved controversial as it comes at a time when the same
local authorities are being forced to find massive savings, calling into
question the motivation of any council who agrees.
Mr Cameron is a vocal supporter of fracking and, if his
arguments are to be believed, this fuel source could cut energy bills, provide
jobs and boost the economy.
So if he truly believes this then why would he not sign the
planning orders allowing fracking firms to build a plant in his Witney
constituency in Oxfordshire?
Similarly, Chancellor George Osborne is a fan of this new
power source and yet his Tatton constituency, right in the heart of a shale gas
goldmine in Cheshire, remains unfracked.
There are obviously reasons for this.
Tatton council, for example, is openly opposed to any
fracking in the constituency, while in other areas the public (otherwise known
as the voters) are yet to be convinced about the benefits.
But in itself this causes a problem.
Winston Churchill said “The nation
will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are keeping their
ears to the ground”, in other words leaders by their nature must lead by
example, not a Ledru-Rollinesque
French revolutionary.
Mediocre politicians, including the current crop of party leaders,
let their policies be dictated by what they believe the public wants or what
opinion polls told them.
However, compare this approach to Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher,
two politicians who were regularly criticised for going it alone without
looking for a consensus.
Regardless of your opinions of Mr Blair or Mrs Thatcher, both were
true political lions, leaders in the modern age when too many politicians seem
happier to follow, although it is worth noting both had substantial parliamentary
majorities during their respective tenures at Number 10.
This is not to say politicians should not listen to the voters, but
the fact is public opinion is not always right, often contradictory and regularly
unrealistic.
An all too often used political analogy is campaign in poetry, govern
in prose, meaning getting elected is about setting out your vision, being in
power is about getting the job done.
President Kennedy is
credited with creating the mass media politician, where candidates must speak eloquently
and look good while doing it, but the reason he is still revered was his
ability to unite the country behind his [poetical] vision.
We are arguably living
during what could be seen as a significant epoch in human history, a time when
the role of capitalism and government are being questioned, but unfortunately
we are also living during a time when many countries worldwide also lack a
political leader with the skills and conviction to carry through their beliefs.
What make this especially
frustrating is this is a time when there is a clear opportunity to significantly
alter the way things are done.
So with this idea in mind
let us look back at the examples stated earlier.
Would Mr Duncan-Smith not
have an easier time selling welfare cuts if he was to prove living on £53 a week was possible rather than just making claims in front of a television
camera?
Would Mr Gove not be better
placed to reform the education system if he spent significant amounts of time
in schools and with teachers and saw what pressures they were under?
Would Mr Cameron not be seen
as a stronger leader if he took an unpopular position and allowed fracking in
Whitney?
Maybe all of the current
occupants in the House of Commons should take note of what a man who
unwittingly had history trust upon him said, President Harry Truman.
“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where
there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous,
skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”
